Actually, the thinking is that global warming might CAUSE an ice age.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/05mar_arctic/
Finally, some good news (I live in the tropics ) 
Well, that first article refers to the UK & Western Europe.
Localized glaciation is a possibility I suppose, but that’s not exactly a good thing. 
The last 2 links are actually referring to the same, and the Guardian article is referring to the hype; and as Science Writer Peter Hadfield reported later is that a lot of the caveats made originally were lost as usual when popular media reports about the risks that climate change bring.
Recent investigations showed that the changes in the current were not as dire as the early report told us and it was made worse with the misunderstandings by the popular media made in 2003 and later…
(sources in the SHOW MORE button under the video)As others pointed out, this is not true; the titles of the articles you link to are misleading.
It’s long been known that, “paradoxically,” Europe can cool because of global warming. You link to articles that discuss the North Atlantic becoming cooler due to melting ice. “Ice age” refers to global cooling accompanied with accumulating ice.
If Archer and Ganopolski are correct in their point, then due to AGW there will be no glacial maxima for the next 500 thousand years (“500 kyr” as they put it). And the relevant context is that there were at least four glacial maxima besides ours in the previous 500 thousand years.
Also, see the “Temperature of Planet Earth” graph in the Wiki Paleoclimatology article. Note that in all cases there has been exponential rate of increase to highest interglacial temperatures, such as we have been experiencing for millennia since before AGW even existed. Then note that the interglacial high temperatures have always been followed by rapid decline, meaning it is no stretch to consider the possibility that AGW is preventing onset of another glacial cycle.
Of course a glacial maximum cannot be reached in less than thousands of years, and is not an immediate threat, and no one is arguing otherwise. That does not mean that offsetting it later would be better than doing so now. Also, based on the evidence of past cycles without AGW, drastically colder temperatures would be a short-term threat, perhaps on the scale of a century, and I am not sure human productivity and quality of life would be improved by such temperatures.
The following statement from my last reply is incorrect: “there has been exponential rate of increase to highest interglacial temperatures, such as we have been experiencing for millennia”.
It should have been written: “such as we have experienced for millennia”.
Exponential increase (on a 200 ky scale) did occur for about 8 millennia after the last glacial maximum. Temperatures have leveled off in the most recent 12 millennia, with the recent highs having been matched or nearly matched more than once in the present glacial minimum era.
This:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
The graph “Temperature of lower atmosphere for the last 400,000 years”
The current duration of our warn spell meets the duration of the last warm spell, and exceeds that of the 2 before that. The cycles are pretty irregular…
So yes, we may be due for a cooling spell, and perhaps it may have helped that we are warming the earth.
But… if the next cycle downturn, being unpredictable, does not happen for another 1,000 or 5,000 years, well, we have a fairly long duration of excessively high temperatures to live through (or not) before the next ice age “save us”.
Relying on natural climate change as a deus ex machina to save us from pollution - or attempting to second guess mother nature - probably isn’t a clever strategy nor is it a good excuse to do nothing about our problems. Any solution that might work in a few thousand years isn’t a solution to a problem mainly created over about the last 50 years.
Yes. And I’m just saying that the science published explains what forcings were doing that. Currently those forcings are not as important as the current human made one that is being obseved now.
You speak as though the weight of all forcings was known to a high degree of precision. In fact, the opposite is true, as this chart from the IPCC link cited in reply #21 shows:
Total net human activity may be about 0.6 watts per square meter or it may be about 2.4 watts per square meter- a spread of a factor of four. IANA scientist, but that sounds to me like a bit much to provide a high degree of confidence.
The problem of claiming that “the opposite is true” is that then there should be no reason for the IPCC to conclude that we have to control our emissions. In reality the IPCC looks at different scenarios and when the scenario of not doing much controlling emissions is looked at the most probable outcome is not pretty.
The evidence point to most of the increase of the CO2 in the atmosphere observed now is due to human activity.
The degree of confidence of how much warming we will get with a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere was reached using many lines of inquiry.
Untrue, strawman. IPCC might have a scientifically reasonable case for action even if net human activity was 0.6 watts/m, provided they make scientifically reasonable inferences. I would, however, like to know about any other scientific issues where inferences or empirical evidence are considered useful whose value is not known to better than a factor-of-four degree of accuracy.
So I have been hearing, believe me.
Strawman #2. I have not suggested otherwise. I am aware of the facility on Mauna Kea HA which has been taking the lead in tracking the increase.
TY for the link. I’ll take a look at it.
What I said was just using logic, it makes no sense to declare that there are no scenarios where the risks are too high to ignore just because you think “the reverse” is what is the truth.
Actually I never said that you did say it, I was “just saying”. As “in addition”. before your knee jerks I already pointed out that a lot of what you say is good, but there are some nits. Once again remember that we are here because it was really odd to claim that the currently observed warming is preventing the ice ace from coming when what the scientists are reporting is that there is not really an ice age in the cards for a long time. No biggie.
I made no such declaration, and my premise (the weight of all forcings is known to only a low degree of precision) does not logically compel me to.
OK, fine, you didn’t.
You did?
For the second time: (from reply #26) “Of course a glacial maximum cannot be reached in less than thousands of years, and is not an immediate threat, and no one is arguing otherwise. That does not mean that offsetting it later would be better than doing so now. Also, based on the evidence of past cycles without AGW, drastically colder temperatures would be a short-term threat, perhaps on the scale of a century, and I am not sure human productivity and quality of life would be improved by such temperatures.”
Yes, but I was replying to the earlier “I also wondered why no one has considered that AGW may be bringing with it a silver lining by preventing occurrence of another glacial maximum.” It turns out that others did consider it but it is mostly a moot point. To me it sounded like the ole George of the jungle joke about an amulet that scared tigers, His friend Ape noticed that Tigers are very far away from Africa (so it was useless), George replied that “You see! Amulet works!” In this case the ice age is far away or unlikely to be close to us to make it an issue.
Again, not a big deal, but by experience I have to report that “silver linings” like that are items that many contrarians out there like to get and use a lot to confuse a lot of people.
With one exception in 10 years online over 300 days a year this thread is the first place I have ever encountered the question. The exception was I think a professional climatology site which dismissed it by calling the silver lining proposal a logical fallacy. I cannot recall the details; I do recall their argument struck me as ludicrous, and no better than you own failed attempt to impute logical deficiency.
You have heard of the Little Ice Age. Imagine one such settling in soon, as in this century, and then getting progressively worse fast. It would take 1000s of years for glaciation to again reach the latitude of New York City. But it would take a lot less time to affect productivity and quality of life. For example agricultural output would be reduced by increase in the amount of water locked up in ice. For another example with the Thames River freezing over every year thick enough to drive a car across, the British and many others would suffer skyrocketing heating bills not offset by decreased AC costs (heating is much more expensive than AC).
I am not exactly a contrarian because I agree that AGW is taking place; I am on the fence as to the severity of the threat and what we should do about it. However, OP raises a question which AGW consensus has either improperly ignored or improperly dismissed.
As far as I have been able to tell, that is. If there is an unbiased, detailed scholarly treatment somewhere I would like to know about it.
The Larry Niven - Jerry Pournelle novel “Fallen Angels” had as part of its premise that the glaciers in North Dakota in the mid-21st century were the result of excessive zeal in reducing carbon emissions, the only thing that had prevented the coming ice age until then… I believe that was written in the 1980’s.
Don’t forget - I also noticed that many older buildings in the scuzzier parts of London appeared to be retrofitted for indoor plumbing with sewage / drain pipes running down the outside of the building, poked through the walls to the WC, not designed for a place with serious cold spells. I suspect prolonged cold spells would have many interesting assorted negative effects on many aspects of modern life.
there’s also the note that the recent solar cycle is half what was predicted, the lowest in 100 years, despite blithe assumptions a decade ago it would exceed the previous ones. Reduced sunspot activity has been correlated with cooler climate. Nobody has a real explanation how things really work in this regard - cycles or climate.
But in the end, I’ll repeat - relying on Mother Nature to save our bacon is unrealistic. We should try to reduce greenhouse emissions because no matter what the natural world does, it cannot be a good idea for us to mess it up without being sure of the outcome. Frivolously wasting a finite resource as well just makes it a doubly bad idea. The ice age could start next year or in 10,000 years. if the latter, that really doesn’t solve the CO2 problem.